What does Sup Forums think of Julius Evola?

What does Sup Forums think of Julius Evola?

>Sicilian
Not white

Muh Niggah

>implying any of these retards could muster the brain power to finish one chapter of Revolt Against the Modern World

Better head over to cripple chan if you want to discuss Evola

>muh kali yuga
i don't care about curry nigger drivel

Hack writer.
Weininger and Kierkegaard are superior

You see, by mentioning a good writer, you don't get away with why Evola is a hack.

Based

His books are hard to come by though

I prefer Miguel Serrano

>Took heavy drugs
>was a harre krishna
>Did not believe in God
>called himself an anti-fascist

Absolute degenerate if you ask me

It's obvious why. Magnet thinking- "kali yuga"
"we europeans" etc
His concepts are pure trash and he lack basic historical knowledge.

Haven't read him, have you?

>Haven't read him, have you?
I've read his essays
>You have to give me reasons
>But I'll just dismiss you with "haven't read him"
You're very fair

>he lacks basic historical knowledge

t. Random faggot on Sup Forums

Carl Jung and Herman Hesse thought he was an excellent writer, but what did those two idiots know? You seem much smarter than them. :^)

>t. Random faggot on Sup Forums
t. mad as fuck
>Carl Jung and Herman Hesse
So? If you need other people to do your thinking for you, you're not even worth my time.

Evola was clearly on a plane of existence that most people are not.

the main thesis behind ride the tiger is revolutionary, and has probably resolved countless existential crises' among right wing individuals.

Kek. You still haven't given any arguments against anything Evola wrote. All you did was restate two of his concepts (only one, really, because I have no idea what you mean by "we Europeans") and call these ideas pure trash. You've also said he lacks basic historical knowledge, which is hilarious to me because fucking Carl Jung used The Hermetic Tradition as a reference book. Even his detractors recognize he had an encyclopedic knowledge of the subjects he treated. You haven't read Evola, at best you've browsed his Wikipedia page. I have read a lot of Evola, however, and if you give me a real argument I'll make you look like the dilettante you are. So do your best and I'll be waiting.

In another age I would call him an addled mystic, a previous generation's conservative Jodorowsky. But who knows really, I'm starting to understand the attractions of Myth.

seems like an interesting figure, can't wait to read him in Italian, but I want to get a good understanding of the basics first

do you think pic related is right?

>u've also said he lacks basic historical knowledge, which is hilarious to me because fucking Carl Jung used The Hermetic Tradition as a reference book
And Carl Jung also believed that their was a "native spirit" in north america that was making white americans resemble natives physically.
>Even his detractors recognize he had an encyclopedic knowledge
Meaningless cliches phrase, he lacks even the very basics about most subjects he treats of
>nd if you give me a real argument I'll make you look like the dilettante you are.
Certainly it means a lot from someone who thinks in cheap cliches.
His thinking is completely magnetic. How am I going to argue against an entire compendium of ideas? I'll give you one example of his stupidity-
>The red Indians were proud races with their own style, their own dignity, sensibility and forms of religiosity;

To this day Evola is regarded as among the foremost pioneering Western academics in interpreting certain eastern texts and practices. People may critique his interpretations, but no one doubts his academic caliber.

>Hey you know that guy you thought was smart? Well he once said something that was not so smart! Haha tough luck pal!

Damn, you're right. Why should someone writing about culture know something taught in high school classes?

K. Repeating "his thinking is magnetic" and throwing one of his statements at me without any other commentary besides "see? This is stupid" is pretty much the level of argumentation I expected. I need you to explain exactly what you mean by "magnetic thinking."

>how am I supposed to argue against a compendium of ideas?

I don't know, pick an idea and argue against it? I'll help - you could criticize his conception of history as nonlinear, you could criticize his reliance on strictly the Pali texts of Buddhism, you could criticize his sometimes irrational anti-Catholicism (as in the letters he exchanged on Tradition and Catholicism with Guenon). Or, as I suggested before, you should just not argue about an author about whom you know very little.

Makes sense to me, but personally I was glad to have read Revolt before The Mystery of the Grail and The Hermetic Tradition. Revolt frames his worldview and the shorter works "zoom in" on particular aspects of his worldview. At least that's how I see it. Doctrine of Awakening and Men Among the Ruins seemed to me the most standalone of his works. You probably don't need to have read Revolt to get the gist

his "refutation" of stirner in ride the tiger is weak

Stirner is a fucking forced meme and its shit. Nobody knows who this dick was, and nobody cares either. Fuck off

>murricans will never inderstand evola and traditionalism

Evola is important, but yeah, you have to read him with a grain of salt and combine some of his ideas with those of other traditionalists.

what do you think of Ivan Ilyin... Ivan?

René Guenon is way better

>and throwing one of his statements at me without any other commentary besides "see? This is stupid" i
And being incapable of discerning the absurdity in his statement is the exact level of intellect I expected form you
> I need you to explain exactly what you mean by "magnetic thinking
Of course you do. It is the sort of thinking found in radicals and reactionaries. Overused, nonsense concepts like "spirit of our time,"
It is the act of ignoring important specifics to hoist a certain viewpoint.
"A proud race"- the Indians were as different from each other as Russians are different from the Irish. One of his "proud" races survived solely by murder, another was a matriarchy, etc
The rest of your post is snarky trash not worth dealing with.